quote:
Zaza had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
So you'd argue that it's perfectly okay to mistreat a newborn human baby? They're not overly self-aware, you know.
But they will be.
A cow will never be self aware, so I have no rational problem with tipping them over. Emotional problem, yes, but I'll get rid of those sooner or later. ^_^
quote:
Jens enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
But they will be.A cow will never be self aware, so I have no rational problem with tipping them over. Emotional problem, yes, but I'll get rid of those sooner or later. ^_^
What's potential got to do with anything? The argument was that if the creature is not self-aware, it can't suffer. And since it can't suffer, we have no reason not to mistreat it.
So what would be wrong with giving an infant a good old beating? I mean, it can't possibly suffer.
quote:
x--ZazaO-('-'Q) :
What's potential got to do with anything? The argument was that if the creature is not self-aware, it can't suffer.
Right-o.
quote:
And since it can't suffer, we have no reason not to mistreat it.
Actually, the potential for future cognative ability would be the reason not to mistreat it in this case.
Also, remember that infants are very nearly cognative - more so than apes, and I'm even against mistreatment of apes. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 01:53 PM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Blindy said:
No ecosystem or society could possibly function without someone suffering.
Of course not. The point is to try to make decisions that minimize suffering.
Damn, a lot of people responded with good points since last night. I'll try to address them later tonight, but I have to study and pack for most of today 
quote:
Zaza said this about your mom:
So you'd argue that it's perfectly okay to mistreat a newborn human baby? They're not overly self-aware, you know.
So, I suppose being hungry (And crying for it's mother) isn't self aware. It really isn't, but until the brain develops, that's all children have to go on: Instinct.
The fact that our young depends on us at a very early stage in development is irrelevant, it's just a silly argument to try and sway us to your point. 
Deth actually agreed with me, though. I'm putting that in my sig.
quote:
farming practices are more ecologically disruptive than grazing practices, making them the evil ones according to their own "least harm" principle.
Except that a large portion (greater than 50%) of farming going on as we speak is only to support livestock.
That being said. Farming gets cleaner all the time. Even food animals don't need to be treated as poorly as they are. I like a nice steak.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Maradon! wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Least Harm principle suggests carnivorous diet.
The reasoning in that argument is very flawed. It only applies the least harm principle in regards to quantity, not quality. The animals who are plowed over by tractors haven't been put through a long period of suffering, they were just killed. A rabbit or mole that lives an uninterupted life and then is plowed over by a tractor does not experience as much suffering as an animal imprisoned and mutilated before it is killed. Also, we are not factoring in insects killed by pesticide and the like. For the sake of this argument, we are limiting it to animals with somewhat complex nervous systems that have identifiable interests. I know you believe NO animals have interests, but in the context of the article, it is assumed they do.
So, no. The least harm principle does not suggest a carnivorous diet.
I whent hunting (bow hunting) and have sluter a few animals to eat them.
The Wolf kills to eat, the lion... and most animals do.
As far as i'm consernet, we are animals our self.
The wolf dont care if killing the Rabit to eat it will "hurt his feleing" and REALY dont care.
Rare are the animals that will Keep there pray alive to eat it, to make it suffer.
And I think this is the prime thing: sufering. Sure dieing is no fun, no matter how you look at it. But as long as it's not done to torture and make sufer willingly.
I eat Meat, and prety much anything and everything I can find.
I accept the fact that it's all twisted. the Basic are the basic, instinc will rule your judgement.
I have done a 2 week survival in the Nort of Canada. I, persoanly, Did not have to kill or hunt, because I was wise nuff to survive out of roots, flowers and wild wheat.
But it wise, for a good diet, to eat bit of everything ... anyhow, For me, eathing meat is normal and even good on my Karma.
that was my 10 canadian cent (bout 71 cents USD)
That and I like meat.
quote:
Alaan had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Question before I go any further: Aren't your standard meat cow and pig much different from those that live in nature? IE: Bred by man to be better for raising?
They are not much different, no. Even though they have never known any different environment, they still try to do things that come natural to them. Chickens still try to build a nest, stretch their wings, dig in the ground, etc. Though they have never been out in nature, they still try to act out their natural inclinations.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Punky Brewster:
The equating of racism and speciesism is insane. A black man and a white man are identical except for skin color and facial features. A man and a pig are in no way related, other than they are both mammals. There is no reason to feel sympothy with their suffering other than a misguided sense of consience.
The point is not really the difference between the two parties, but rather the similarities of the mindsets of the speciests and racists. White slaveowners did not take into account the suffering of black slaves because they were of a different race than them. "Specieists" do not take into account the suffering of nonhumans because they are not in the same species as them.
And no, a black man and a white man are not identical outside of appearances. They will be different in virtually every characteristic (stength, intelligence, etc). Sure two humans are much more similar than a human and a pig. But also, it is a stretch to say there is nothing similar between a pig and a human. They have transplanted pig hearts into human bodies. On the grand scale of organisms, mammals are very similar to each other, just as on a closer scale, humans are very similar to one another.
quote:
The fact of the matter is, morality doesn't enter into the equation. The order of the world is eat or be eaten. As the species on the top of the food chain, simply having the ability of being able to not eat animals thanks to scientific methods of getting the nutients from them elsewhere does not mean that suddenly the order has changed, because it hasn't. We don't need a moral right to eat animals; It's just the way things are supposed to work. Humans are not designed to live off plants alone.
The way we currently attain that meat is far from how it may have been intended in the "natural order" as well, so what is your point?
also, I think you may have missed a very good post by Zaza on this subject, so I'll repeat it
quote:
And the good old argument of how things are "supposed" to be is inherently hilarious. Were we "designed" to construct societies or have laws? Not really, we were "intended" into pack creatures. By the way we were "íntended", we should be killing each other over food and having fistfights to determine who should lead the flock. Unless you believe in some divine will that speaks unto us to consume animals, what we eat and what we don't is entirely in our own hands.
One key thing to remember, this isn't an argument about whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. This is an argument about whether or not it is ethical to eat meat in which the animal was put through excessive cruelty.
And of course, that also brings us to the topic of whether there is even such thing as cruelty to animals.
If the roles were reversed and we were the hunted, do you think we'd have the option of a fast death? No.. it is going to be slow and very painful, atleast we can kill them very quickly. But the PETA types never think about us, it is just the animals. How would you like to be torn to pieces by a pack of wolves or dropped from the sky by some bird of prey? How would you like to be poisoned by a snake then slowly eatten whole or have your organs liquified by a spider? There are things out there far more cruel then us that do these things in the name of survival.
We are the top of the food chain and there is a lot of us, we have to do what is required to support our species. Mass production of food is one of those things. Regardless of any moral issues involved someone may have with that, we HAVE to do that. Not to mention to stay the healthiest we need to keep our omnivore diet.
And if you *really* think about it, mass production of food has probably prevented the extinction of tons of species. We are more humane then we think IMO. Pesco fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 08:41 PM.
She's not eatin' bacon, not eatin' sausage,
And she won't eat eggs,
Not eatin' chicken, not eatin' turkey
She won't have a steak,
But I just can't help feelin' sorry
For this poor little lettuce head
You know, i can't stop cryin'
'cause I know this broccoli's dead
Vegetarian? I'm not a vegetarian,
Vegetarian...She's a
Poor little cow, little sheep, little fish
How can I sleep? When carrots are bleedin'
Plants are screamin' and tomatoes cry,
You say "It's not so bad, they're only
vegetables", that's what you said
Maybe i'm a murderer, but i'm hungry
and they're better off dead.
Save a plant, eat a cow,
I want beef, I want it now!
I'm gonna eat it cause it's red!
I'm gonna eat it cause it's dead!
Maybe I should eat it raw
Let the blood run down my jaw
I'd eat people if it was legal,
i'd eat people if it was legal!
Best version is the one off the Everything Sucks Album.
The day one of the animals speaks to me and says please dont eat me is the day I take them off the menu.
